Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between Unbilled Accounts Receivable and Financial Performance of Construction Contractors
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies
Previous Article in Journal
Agricultural Internet Entrepreneurs’ Social Network Behaviors and Entrepreneurship Financing Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biomass-Based Innovations in Demand Driven Research and Development Projects in Africa
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Biogas Potential of Coffee Processing Waste in Ethiopia

Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Tropics and Subtropics Group(440e), University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
State Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Bioenergy, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(8), 2678;
Received: 27 June 2018 / Revised: 26 July 2018 / Accepted: 28 July 2018 / Published: 31 July 2018


Primary coffee processing is performed following the dry method or wet method. The dry method generates husk as a by-product, while the wet method generates pulp, parchment, mucilage, and waste water. In this study, characterization, as well as the potential of husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage for methane production were examined in biochemical methane potential assays performed at 37 °C. Pulp, husk, and mucilage had similar cellulose contents (32%). The lignin contents in pulp and husk were 15.5% and 17.5%, respectively. Mucilage had the lowest hemicellulose (0.8%) and lignin (5%) contents. The parchment showed substantially higher lignin (32%) and neutral detergent fiber (96%) contents. The mean specific methane yields from husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage were 159.4 ± 1.8, 244.7 ± 6.4, 31.1 ± 2.0, and 294.5 ± 9.6 L kg−1 VS, respectively. The anaerobic performance of parchment was very low, and therefore was found not to be suitable for anaerobic fermentation. It was estimated that, in Ethiopia, anaerobic digestion of husk, pulp, and mucilage could generate as much as 68 × 106 m3 methane per year, which could be converted to 238,000 MWh of electricity and 273,000 MWh of thermal energy in combined heat and power units. Coffee processing facilities can utilize both electricity and thermal energy for their own productive purposes.

1. Introduction

Coffee production is a livelihood for about 125 million people worldwide, particularly from developing countries [1]. Ethiopia is known to be the origin of and gene pool for coffee Arabica [2]. In the last decade, Ethiopia has been the largest coffee producer in Africa, and it remains fifth in the world, contributing a share of about 4.5% to the world production. Annual coffee production increased from 273,400 Mg in 2007 to 469,091 Mg in 2016, while the cultivation area increased from 407,147 ha to 700,475 ha (Table 1). The annual green bean production has increased in the last 4 consecutive years, but productivity (yield per harvest area) has declined in the same period. The amount of coffee by-products is directly related to coffee production. Coffee is Ethiopia’s leading export commodity; and the livelihood of more than a million households depends on coffee production [3]. Coffee made up about 24% of the country’s total export earnings for the fiscal period 2012/13 [4]. Ethiopian coffee is produced under forest, semi-forest, garden, and plantation production systems contributing 10, 35, 50, and 5% of the country’s coffee production, respectively. Thus, about 95% of Ethiopia’s coffee is produced by small holder farmers [2,4].
In Ethiopia, the main regional states involved in coffee production are Oromia, Southern Nations Nationalities & People (SNNP), and Gambella. As of 2013/14, there were 1026 wet and 696 dry milling stations in these regions. About 60% of the wet milling and 79% of dry milling stations were located in SNNP and Oromia regions, respectively. Coffee milling stations are owned by private companies, cooperatives, or states. About 75% of the wet and 96% of the dry mills are owned by private firms. Cooperatives own 23% of wet and 3% of dry stations (Table 2) [5]. Unlike the dry milling stations, the majority of the wet mills are not connected to the electric grid; they are run on diesel engines for pulping and further processing steps. Replacing fossil fuels by bioenergy could be an option with ecologic and economic advantages.
Coffee cherries are collected from the coffee trees by selective harvesting (picking only the ripe fruits by hand) or strip harvesting (fruits striped at once with different maturity levels). The cherries are then processed to green beans following either the dry method or the wet method (Figure 1). In the wet method, the cherries undergo pulping, fermentation/washing, and peeling/polishing one after the other before producing the green beans in 7–12 days. The respective by-products are pulp (43% w/w), mucilage (12% w/w), and parchment (6.1% w/w) on the intrinsic fresh weight basis of coffee cherries [6]. On the other hand, the dry method uses hulling after drying the cherries to produce green beans. Husk is the major single by-product of the dry method. It represents about 50% w/w of the dry cherry. The dry method often requires up to 4 weeks from harvest to green beans [7]. Despite the higher water requirement (about 80 L kg−1 green beans) and disposal problems, green coffee beans from wet processing have a superior aroma and are sold with higher premiums [8]. Coffee by-products are dumped within the hosting community with virtually no economic benefits, thus causing severe environmental problems. The by-products are known to be rich in organic pollutants (e.g., proteins, sugars, and pectin), tannins, and phenolic compounds harmful to plants, humans, and aquatic biota [9,10]. Globally, coffee processing generates about 15 × 106 Mg (dry weight basis) of coffee residues, of which 9.4 × 106 Mg is pulp [11].
Biogas technology was introduced to Ethiopia five decades ago. The technology is envisaged as a de-centralized energy source for improved livelihood and a source of organic fertilizer. The Ethiopian national biogas program installed about 8,000 household biogas units (4 to 10 m3) in 2009–2013 [12,13]. Most of the biogas digesters are fed with cow dung or latrine waste. By-products of coffee processing, which are currently discarded as waste, could be an alternative feedstock.
The rates and extent of bio-degradation are crucial in anaerobic fermentation of agricultural residues, which in turn depend on lignocellulose contents and properties [14]. Higher cell contents (protein, carbohydrates, and fats) tend to ferment easily and result in higher methane production [15]. The complex interaction of hemicellulose and lignin often leads to a reduced cellulose hydrolysis. However, in a first approximation, lignin content in substrates has been proven to be a good predictor of methane potential from agro-industrial wastes [15,16].
The biogas yield from coffee processing by-products has been investigated by several researchers, but the bio-methane yield potentials reported vary substantially [17]. Ulsido, et al. [18] found a methane production potential of 132 L kg−1 VS from husk, while Kivaisi et al. [19] reported 650 L kg−1 VS of Robusta and 730 L kg−1 VS of Arabica mixed solid wastes (husk and pulp). Similarly, Baier and Schleiss [20] determined a biogas potential of 380 L kg−1 VS (57–66% methane) and 900 L kg−1 VS of pulp using batch assay and semi-continuous digesters, respectively. Adams and Dougan [21] reported the suitability of anaerobic conversion of coffee pulp and the waste water for waste treatment, and the generation of useful fuel, as high as 66 m3 per ton of pulp digested. Variation in the bio-methane potentials of substrates could be attributed to the variety of coffee waste investigated and mode of fermentation. Chanakya and De Alwis [1] summarized several research and field trials on coffee processing wastes. Different types of reactors (batch, CSTR, UASB, and BIBR) were tested at varying scales of operation.
On the other hand, Franca and Oliveira [7] pointed out that, despite the bio-methane potential, coffee by-products are comparable to common agricultural residues, and that the lack of scientific studies hinders the wider utilization of the by-products for technical or economic reasons. Jayachandra, et al. [22] reported that the acidic pH and polyphenols in the coffee husk makes it resistant to anaerobic conversion. However, the treatment of husk with thermophilic fungus (Mycotypha) resulted in suitable pH levels for anaerobic conversion and thus increased the bio-methane yield considerably. Ensiled coffee pulp/husk presents an ideal method to preserve the substrate for longer periods of use in anaerobic digesters and reduces caffeine content (13–63%), total polyphenols (28–70%), and condensed polyphenols (51–81%) [23]. Seasonal availability of coffee by-products could be a limitation for continuous anaerobic fermentation.
Summary of bio-methane yields from typical anaerobic substrates is listed in Table 3. Municipal wastes tend to produce more methane than other substrate types. Despite frequent use of animal manure as biogas substrate, the methane production rate was relatively low.
In 2015, Ethiopia had an annual electricity production of 10.08 TWh. The overall installed capacity was 2.7 GW, in which hydro, fossil fuel, and other renewables contributed 79.5%, 7.5%, and 13% of the installed capacity, respectively [27]. As of 2016, 85.4% of the urban and 26.5% of the rural population of Ethiopia had access to electricity [28].
To the authors’ knowledge, no comprehensive study on the characterization and bio-methane potential of coffee husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage has been published in the scientific literature. Electrical and thermal potentials (in Ethiopian context) of the bio-methane from husk, pulp, and mucilage were not reported either.
The objective of this study was to examine the physico-chemical characteristics and determine the anaerobic bio-methane potential of coffee husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage generated from primary coffee processing in Ethiopia. Furthermore, the potential of the bio-methane from husk, pulp, and mucilage to generate electrical and thermal energy was estimated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials

Coffee husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage were collected from Gomma-2 estate coffee farm (7o55′16.32” N, 36o37′06.62” E) about 400 km South-West of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The pulp was collected right after pulping of the cherries, from consecutive processing days of a month. The pulp then was spread on a plastic sheet for 3–4 days of sun drying. The pulp was shuffled in regular intervals, in order to dry evenly. The mucilage was fetched from a second fermentation pit, poured on a plastic sheet, and left to dry under the sun for 5–6 days. The parchment and husk were collected from the same farm, without the need for further drying. All samples underwent a size reduction to pass 1 mm pores, packed in polyethylene bags, and shipped to the University of Hohenheim, Germany. The samples were stored in a cool and dry place until further use.

2.2. Inoculum

The inoculum was obtained from the State Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Bioenergy, University of Hohenheim. It consists of dairy manure and energy crops pre-digested in laboratory reactors, cultivated under the institute’s standard procedure for bio-methane potential (BMP) assays [29]. Prior to the BMP assay, the inoculum was digested at 37 °C to degas and allow temperature adaptation of the anaerobic bacteria for further experimental assays. The inoculum had a total solids and volatile solids content of 5.0% and 61.6% (of TS), respectively.

2.3. Chemical Analysis

Moisture, volatile matter, and ash contents of samples were determined according to DIN EN 14774-3:2010-02, DIN EN 15148:2010-03 and DIN EN 14775:2010-04, respectively. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), and crude fiber contents were determined by AOAC Official Method 973.18 (FibreBag Analysis System, Gerhardt, Königswinter, Germany). Sugar (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) and acid (lactic acid, formic acid, acetic acid, and propionic acid) contents of the samples were determined with HPLC (Bischoff, Leonberg, Germany) equipped with RI detector. Samples were separated on a Bio-Rad Aminex HPLC organic acid column (HPX—87H 300 × 7.8 mm2) at 35 °C with a mobile phase of 0.02 N H2SO4, at a rate of 0.6 mL min−1 and pressure 6.0 MPa. Sugar and acid contents were analyzed at the laboratory of the State Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Bioenergy, University of Hohenheim. Elemental composition of the samples was analyzed by the State Institute of Agricultural Chemistry, University of Hohenheim, and by the laboratory of Schaumann Bioenergy GmbH.

2.4. Anaerobic Batch Digestion Tests

The Hohenheim Biogas Yield Test (HBT) is a laboratory batch method used to determine the methane and biogas yield potential of substrates [30], which is mentioned in the German Engineers Association (VDI) Guideline 4630 [31], as one of six recommended methods for BMP assays. The trial was carried out using 100 mL calibrated glass syringes as fermenters (Figure 2). The syringes were fitted to a motorized rotor to enable continuous mixing of the samples. The fermentation was operated for duration of 35 days at a temperature of 37 °C. At the beginning of the process, 30 g of inoculum was placed inside a glass syringe with 0.4 g of ground and dried samples [29,31]. Reference samples (hay and concentrate) of known methane yield were used in order to verify the quality of the inoculum and the reliability of the digestion process [29]. The blank (zero variant) fermenter was filled with about 50 g of inoculum alone (Table 4). Biogas and methane yields were obtained by deducting the proportional biogas and methane yields from the zero variant. The biogas volume was measured according to the volume difference before and after emptying the gas inside the syringe. While emptying the syringes, biogas was injected into the methane sensor (Advanced Gasmitter, Pronova, Berlin, Germany), which was calibrated with ambient air and gas (~60% CH4). The fermenter temperature (mostly 2 °C less than the digestion temperature) and ambient air pressure were measured during the gas measurement and used to normalize the gas yield at STP (101.325 kPa, 273 K). The specific methane yield (L CH4 kg−1 VS added) is the net normalized methane yield divided by the amount of organic dry matter of substrate added.
The degree of degradation ( η oDM ) was evaluated according to the mass ratio of gas produced m biogas to volatile solids loaded (Equation (1)).
η oDM = m biogas m · c VS  
in which m is the dry mass of substrate added and c VS is the concentration of volatile solids in the substrate.
The molar masses of methane ( M CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide ( M CO 2 ) were used to determine the mass of the biogas (Equation (2)) based on their respective concentrations in the biogas, assuming the biogas was composed of methane and carbon dioxide only [31,32].
m biogas = V biogas · ( M CO 2 · c CO 2 22.4 · 100 + M CH 4 · c CH 4 22.4 · 100 )
in which Vbiogas is the volume of biogas measured, c CO 2 is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the biogas, and c CH 4 is the concentration of methane in the biogas.
The energy recovery (ER) rate was determined by the ratio of calorific values of the methane generated to the calorific value of input substrates in the batch assay. The gross energy (GE) of substrates can be estimated using results from Weende feed analysis and applying the Equation (3) [33].
  GE = ( 0.0239   MJ   g 1 ·   XP + 0.0398   MJ   g 1 · XL + 0.0201   MJ   g 1 · XF + 0.0175   MJ   g 1 · NfE )
in which XP is crude protein, XL is crude fat, XF is crude fiber, NfE is nitrogen free extract (NfE) (g kg−1, dry mass basis), and GE is gross energy (MJ kg−1). The specific energy content of component parameters has certain differences, as shown in the fixed coefficients of the equation.
The theoretical energy potential of by-products from coffee processing was calculated under the following scenario: (1) that all the husk, mucilage, and pulp generated in a harvest season is recovered and utilized in biogas digesters (the parchment was excluded from calculation), (2) the electric conversion efficiency in a CHP is 35% electricity and 40% thermal energy that could be used for coffee drying, and (3) the lower methane heating value of 9.968 kWh m−3 is used to calculate the primary energy yield.
Statistical analysis was made using Microsoft Excel (2013) to determine the mean and standard deviation of SMY of substrates and other parameters related to physico-chemical characterization.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Composition

There were certain differences in the chemical composition between coffee husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage (Table 5). The parchment showed the highest proportion (76.9%) of crude fiber contents, followed by husk (39.9%), pulp (24.8%), and mucilage (19.4%). NDF, ADF, and ADL contents in parchment were also considerably higher than in husk, pulp, and mucilage. Non-fiber carbohydrates (sugar, starch and pectin) in mucilage were about 28.8%, while husk and pulp showed comparable NFC of 16.2% and 17.6%, respectively. Hemicellulose contents in parchment, husk, pulp, and mucilage were 20%, 15%, 8%, and 1%, respectively. However, cellulose contents in pulp, husk, and mucilage were roughly the same (32%), while the parchment showed higher values (45%). The lignin in the parchment was about two times higher than for husk and pulp, each. Parchment exhibited the highest lignin content (32%) among the by-products. Samples were also examined for their sugar (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) and organic acid (lactic, formic, acetic, and propionic) contents (Table 5). The highest sugar content was obtained from husk, followed by pulp and mucilage. Fructose was the main component in the sugar analysis. Mucilage had the highest content in organic acids, while husk and pulp contained little amounts of the acid fractions. Lactic acid was the main component in the acid analysis. There was neither detectable sugar nor organic acids in the parchment. Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) in husks showed an ideal value for anaerobic digestion of 25. Mucilage, however, showed lower than the recommended optimum value of 20–30, which might need co-digestion with other substrates with a fairly higher C:N ratio. The parchment, on the other hand, showed the highest C:N ratio (190) [34].

3.2. Elemental Analysis

The elemental analysis of husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage showed that the substrates might exhibit a deficiency in some important trace elements required for optimal and stable biogas production, as illustrated in Table 6, compared to the range of values suggested by Oechsner, et al. [35]. Mucilage was deficient in Mo, Se, and W, pulp in Mn and Co., and husk in all analyzed trace elements besides Co. The deficiency of Mo in mucilage, pulp, and husk was as high as 70%, 80%, and 90%, respectively, compared to minimum trace element requirements. Ni and Se were also deficient with 60% and 55%, respectively, both in husk and pulp. Fe, which is required in a higher amount than other trace elements, was available 29% in husk and 65% in pulp compared to the minimum requirements. Shortage of trace elements often causes a decline in biogas production due to the loss of a stable digestion process and eventually leads to a lower substrate feeding rate [36,37,38,39]. Full scale anaerobic digestion of coffee by-products thus requires supplementation of trace elements through co-digestion with animal manure or commercial formulas.

3.3. HBT Analysis

The mean SMY from husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage was examined at 37 °C for 35 days following the HBT batch assay protocol (Table 7). The SMY from husk was 159 L kg−1 VS, and the average methane content of biogas was 56.8%. The energy recovery rate of husk was 34%, which indicates a fairly low anaerobic performance. Mönch-Tegeder, et al. [33] demonstrated similar results from batch fermentation of horse dung. The pulp showed SMY of 245 L kg−1 VS with a methane quality of 51.5%. Parchment exhibited the lowest SMY of 31 L kg−1 VS. The result suggested that coffee parchment is not suitable for anaerobic conversion. The highest recalcitrant content in the parchment could be attributed to the lowest SMY. Previous research demonstrated that a higher lignin content was one of the main reasons for lower bio-methane conversion [26,40,41,42]. Mucilage yielded SMY of 294 L kg−1 VS with about 55.4% of methane from the biogas. Thus, the mucilage showed the highest SMY methane yield among the coffee by-products, followed by pulp and husk. The degradability of pulp and mucilage was 63% and 68%, respectively. Higher SMY recovered from mucilage among all examined substrates can be attributed to higher soluble cell-contents (62.3%), as well as lower lignin (5%) and hemicellulose (0.8%) contents. Moreover, the organic acid content of mucilage was much higher than that of the other substrates [43]. Furthermore, the SMY and quality of the biogas from husk, pulp, and mucilage was comparable to common agro-industrial wastes and some energy crops [25] as depicted in Table 3. Khan, et al. [44] determined a SMY of 256 L kg−1 VS–349 L kg−1 VS from different fractions of banana waste, and Haag, et al. [45] demonstrated SMY 228 L kg−1 VS–261 L kg−1 VS from different varieties of cup plants (Silphium perfoliatum) under batch assay.
The energy recovery rate ranges from 4.6% (parchment) to 66% (mucilage), while pulp and husk showed 56% and 33%, respectively. The lowest recovery rate was expected from parchment due to the very high recalcitrant contents in the biomass. Since the ash content of the parchment is very low, it might be suitable for other types of energy conversion technologies, like pelleting and briquetting. The husk is basically a combination of pulp, mucilage, and parchment; hence, it reflects intermediate values of the components.

3.4. Energy Potential of Coffee by-Products in Ethiopia

About 70% of Ethiopian coffee is produced following the dry method and 30% by the wet method. The average green coffee bean production for the past 3 harvest years (2014–2016) was 448,695 Mg year−1 (Table 1). For each unit weight of green coffee beans produced, 0.6 kg of pulp and 0.103 kg of mucilage (DM basis) are generated from the wet method, and 0.933 kg of husk from the dry method. This translates to an average generation of 312,060 Mg DM and 289,748 Mg VS of husk, 85,976 Mg DM and 75,925 Mg VS of pulp, and 14,764 Mg DM and 12,564 Mg VS of mucilage a year. Considering the SMY obtained at the end of the digestion period (35 days) in the BMP assay, the energy potential per year from husk, pulp, and mucilage was estimated to be 160,729 MWh, 64,898 MWh and 12,887 MWh, respectively (Table 8). Since the pulp and mucilage are both available in a single wet processing station, their respective energy potential could be combined. The aggregate methane estimate can produce 238,000 MWh of electricity and 272,586 MWh of thermal energy, provided a CHP unit (total conversion efficiency 75%) is applied. The diesel equivalent of the total bio-methane estimated from the husk, pulp, and mucilage was 68,365 m3, which costs about 40.3 million USD, based on the current fuel retail price in Ethiopia. The bio-methane could displace fossil fuel, which is often used by coffee processing facilities. The diesel is mainly used to run pulping machines and pump water for coffee processing. In Ethiopia, the average diesel consumption by farmers’ cooperatives to process 1 Mg of fresh coffee cherry into parchment coffee was 2.8 L. However, in large estate coffee farms, the consumption was very low (0.9 L Mg−1 fresh cherry). Furthermore, the thermal energy from the CHP units could be utilized in drying parchment coffee or fresh cherries. Therefore, it would be a supplement for open-air drying and reduce labor costs and weather risks faced by traditional coffee drying. Fischer, et al. [17] estimated a potential of 18MWel from anaerobic fermentation for the Kenyan coffee sector, with an installed capacity of 50 kWel for coffee cooperatives and 250 kWel for large estate farms.

4. Conclusions

Ethiopia’s coffee processing sector generates a huge amount of by-products, both in liquid (mucilage) and solid (pulp, parchment, and husk) forms. The current electricity shortage coupled with the environmental issues associated with coffee waste disposal make anaerobic conversion technology a benign intervention. Coffee by-products are rich in lignocellulosic contents with different proportions of cell contents and cell wall (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) contents. The by-products exhibited promising bio-methane potential (BMP) comparable to common agro-industrial residues and some energy crops. The specific methane yield was highest in mucilage followed by pulp and husk. The BMP from parchment was very low, thus implying that it is not suitable for anaerobic conversion. It was estimated that anaerobic fermentation of coffee processing by-products generated by the Ethiopian coffee sector has significant potential to generate methane as high as 68×106 m3 per year, which can produce 238,000 MWhel of electricity and 272,586 MWhth thermal energy. Most coffee processing facilities could recover bio-methane from their own by-products, which would be sufficient to run the processing activities. Seasonal availability of coffee by-products, particularly from the wet method, could limit a year-round utilization. Ensiling, however, enables longer storage periods. Policy instruments like the feed-in tariff (FIT) are suggested to encourage private investors to produce electricity/thermal energy from coffee by-products and also promote renewable energy production. The FIT offers long-term (15–25 years) guaranteed purchase contract and cost-based compensation to renewable energy producers. Further research on the performance of coffee by-products in combination with other biomass sources should be investigated.


η VS Degree of volatile solids degradation
c VS Concentration of volatile solids in dry substrate
m biogas Mass of biogas
M CH 4 Molar mass of methane
M CO 2 Molar mass of carbon dioxide
c CH 4 Concentration of methane in the biogas
c CO 2 Concentration of carbon dioxide in the biogas
GEGross energy of substrate
SMYSpecific methane yield

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.C. and J.M.; Methodology, B.C., H.O., and J.M.; Investigation, B.C. and H.O.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, B.C.; Writing—Review & Editing, B.C. and J.M.; Project Administration, S.L.


This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of the GlobE program in conjunction with the BiomassWeb project, grant number 031A258F.


The authors are grateful to the State Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Bioenergy and the laboratory staff members (University of Hohenheim) for the batch assay trials and physico-chemical analysis. In addition, we thank Schaumann Bioenergy, GmbH (Germany) for conducting elemental sample analyses. Authors are indebted to Stiftung Fiat Panis, Germany for financial support. Authors are thankful to Sabine Nugent for language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Chanakya, H.N.; De Alwis, A.A.P. Environmental issues and management in primary coffee processing. Process Saf. Environ. 2004, 82, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Labouisse, J.-P.; Bellachew, B.; Kotecha, S.; Bertrand, B. Current status of coffee (coffea arabica l.) genetic resources in ethiopia: Implications for conservation. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2008, 55, 1079–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Petit, N. Ethiopia’s coffee sector: A bitter or better future? J. Agrar. Chang. 2007, 7, 225–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Minten, B.; Tamru, S.; Kuma, T.; Nyarko, Y. Structure and Performance of Ethiopia’s Coffee Export Sector; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Volume 66. [Google Scholar]
  5. Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. Faostat Statistics Database; Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nation: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gadhamshetty, V.; Arudchelvam, Y.; Nirmalakhandan, N.; Johnson, D.C. Modeling dark fermentation for biohydrogen production: Adm1-based model vs. Gompertz model. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Franca, A.S.; Oliveira, L.S. Coffee processing solid wastes: Current uses and future perspectives. In Agricultural Wastes; Ashworth, G.S., Azevedo, P., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 155–190. [Google Scholar]
  8. Esquivel, P.; Jiménez, V.M. Functional properties of coffee and coffee by-products. Food Res. Int. 2012, 46, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Beyene, A.; Kassahun, Y.; Addis, T.; Assefa, F.; Amsalu, A.; Legesse, W.; Kloos, H.; Triest, L. The impact of traditional coffee processing on river water quality in ethiopia and the urgency of adopting sound environmental practices. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 7053–7063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Shemekite, F.; Gómez-Brandón, M.; Franke-Whittle, I.H.; Praehauser, B.; Insam, H.; Assefa, F. Coffee husk composting: An investigation of the process using molecular and non-molecular tools. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 642–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bakker, R. Availability of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks for Lactic Acid Production-Feedstock Availability, Lactic Acid Production Potential and Selection criteria; Wageningen UR-Food & Biobased Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mengistu, M.G.; Simane, B.; Eshete, G.; Workneh, T.S. A review on biogas technology and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in ethiopia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gwavuya, S.G.; Abele, S.; Barfuss, I.; Zeller, M.; Müller, J. Household energy economics in rural ethiopia: A cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy. Renew. Energy 2012, 48, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tong, X.; Smith, L.H.; McCarty, P.L. Methane fermentation of selected lignocellulosic materials. Biomass 1990, 21, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Triolo, J.M.; Sommer, S.G.; Møller, H.B.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Jiang, X.Y. A new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic digestion: Influence of lignin concentration on methane production potential. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 9395–9402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mussatto, S.I.; Fernandes, M.; Milagres, A.M.F.; Roberto, I.C. Effect of hemicellulose and lignin on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose from brewer’s spent grain. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2008, 43, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fischer, E.; Schmidt, T.; Hora, S.; Geirsdorf, J.; Stinner, W.; Scholwin, F. Agro-Industrial Biogas in Kenya: Potentials, Estimates for Tariffs, Policy and Business Recommendations; German International Cooperation (GIZ): Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ulsido, M.D.; Zeleke, G.; Li, M. Biogas potential assessment from a coffee husk: An option for solid waste management in gidabo watershed of ethiopia. Eng. Rural Dev. 2016, 1348–1354. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kivaisi, A.K.; Rubindamayugi, M.S.T. The potential of agro-industrial residues for production of biogas and electricity in tanzania. Renew. Energy 1996, 9, 917–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baier, U.; Schleiss, K. Greenhouse gas emission reduction through anaerobic digestion of coffee pulp. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, Copenhagen, Denmark, 31 August–2 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. Adams, M.R.; Dougan, J. Waste products. In Coffee: Volume 2: Technology; Clarke, R.J., Macrae, R., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1987; pp. 257–291. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jayachandra, T.; Venugopal, C.; Anu Appaiah, K.A. Utilization of phytotoxic agro waste—Coffee cherry husk through pretreatment by the ascomycetes fungi mycotypha for biomethanation. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Porres, C.; Alvarez, D.; Calzada, J. Caffeine reduction in coffee pulp through silage. Biotechnol. Adv. 1993, 11, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jungbluth, T.; Büscher, W.; Krause, M. Technik Tierhaltung; Eugen Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 2017; Volume 2641. [Google Scholar]
  25. Weiland, P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Roati, C.; Fiore, S.; Ruffino, B.; Marchese, F.; Novarino, D.; Zanetti, M. Preliminary evaluation of the potential biogas production of food-processing industrial wastes. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2012, 8, 291. [Google Scholar]
  27. The World Factbook: 2018; Central Intelligence Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  28. WorldBank. Worlddatabank:Ethiopia; WorldBank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mittweg, G.; Oechsner, H.; Hahn, V.; Lemmer, A.; Reinhardt-Hanisch, A. Repeatability of a laboratory batch method to determine the specific biogas and methane yields. Eng. Life Sci. 2012, 12, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Helffrich, D.; Oechsner, H. The hohenheim biogas yield test: Comparison of different laboratory techniques for the digestion of biomass. Landtechnik 2003, 58, 148–149. [Google Scholar]
  31. VDI. Vdi 4630—Fermentation of organic materials, characterisation of substrate, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests [1872]vdi gesellschaft energietechnik. In VDI Handbuch Energietechnik; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 44–59. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindner, J.; Zielonka, S.; Oechsner, H.; Lemmer, A. Effect of different ph-values on process parameters in two-phase anaerobic digestion of high-solid substrates. Environ. Technol. 2015, 36, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mönch-Tegeder, M.; Lemmer, A.; Oechsner, H.; Jungbluth, T. Investigation of the methane potential of horse manure. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2013, 15, 161–172. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oechsner, H.; Lemmer, A.; Ramhold, D.; Mathies, E.; Mayrhuber, E.; Preissler, D. Method for Producing Biogas in Controlled Concentrations of Trace Elements. U.S. Patent Application DE200850002359, 29 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schattauer, A.; Abdoun, E.; Weiland, P.; Plöchl, M.; Heiermann, M. Abundance of trace elements in demonstration biogas plants. Biosyst. Eng. 2011, 108, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Facchin, V.; Cavinato, C.; Fatone, F.; Pavan, P.; Cecchi, F.; Bolzonella, D. Effect of trace element supplementation on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of foodwaste in batch trials: The influence of inoculum origin. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 70, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Zhang, L.; Lee, Y.W.; Jahng, D. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: Focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 5048–5059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chala, B.; Oechsner, H.; Fritz, T.; Latif, S.; Müller, J. Increasing the loading rate of continuous stirred tank reactor for coffee husk and pulp: Effect of trace elements supplement. Eng. Life Sci. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Creamer, K.S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4044–4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Triolo, J.M.; Pedersen, L.; Qu, H.; Sommer, S.G. Biochemical methane potential and anaerobic biodegradability of non-herbaceous and herbaceous phytomass in biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 125, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rojas-Sossa, J.P.; Murillo-Roos, M.; Uribe, L.; Uribe-Lorio, L.; Marsh, T.; Larsen, N.; Chen, R.; Miranda, A.; Solís, K.; Rodriguez, W.; et al. Effects of coffee processing residues on anaerobic microorganisms and corresponding digestion performance. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Thomsen, S.T.; Spliid, H.; Østergård, H. Statistical prediction of biomethane potentials based on the composition of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 154, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Khan, M.T.; Brulé, M.; Maurer, C.; Argyropoulos, D.; Müller, J.; Oechsner, H. Batch anaerobic digestion of banana waste-energy potential and modelling of methane production kinetics. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2016, 18, 110–128. [Google Scholar]
  45. Haag, N.L.; Nägele, H.-J.; Reiss, K.; Biertümpfel, A.; Oechsner, H. Methane formation potential of cup plant (silphium perfoliatum). Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 75, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Primary coffee processing pathways to produce green beans following the dry and wet method.
Figure 1. Primary coffee processing pathways to produce green beans following the dry and wet method.
Sustainability 10 02678 g001
Figure 2. Glass syringe to determine the bio-methane potential in HBT anaerobic batch assay (adapted from Mittweg, et al. [29]).
Figure 2. Glass syringe to determine the bio-methane potential in HBT anaerobic batch assay (adapted from Mittweg, et al. [29]).
Sustainability 10 02678 g002
Table 1. Area, production, export, and yield of coffee in Ethiopia.
Table 1. Area, production, export, and yield of coffee in Ethiopia.
YearArea (ha)Yield (kg/ha)Green Beans Production (Mg)Green Beans Export (Mg)Export Value (×1000 USD)
Adapted from database [5].
Table 2. Wet and dry milling stations in Ethiopia (Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture, coffee, tea, and spices directorate, 2015).
Table 2. Wet and dry milling stations in Ethiopia (Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture, coffee, tea, and spices directorate, 2015).
Regional StateWet Milling StationsDry Milling StationsGrand Total
SNNP470146 6161364--140756
Table 3. Methane yield potential of different substrates common to anaerobic digesters.
Table 3. Methane yield potential of different substrates common to anaerobic digesters.
SubstratesMethane Yield (L kg−1 VS)Reference
Basic substrates: farm manures
 Pig 210–320[24]
Agricultural products
 Maize silage320–400[24]
Agro industrial wastes
 Potato pulp250–400[24]
 Vegetable waste400[24]
 Brewer grains370–390[24]
Municipal wastes
 Rumen content (slaughterhouse waste)160–400[24]
 Kitchen waste350–600[24]
 Sewage sludge250–350[26]
Table 4. Inoculum and substrate inputs in HBT batch assay.
Table 4. Inoculum and substrate inputs in HBT batch assay.
VariantInoculum (mg)Substrate (mg)TS (% FM)VS (% TS)
Hay standard30,00040090.5689.99
Table 5. Chemical composition of husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage; values on % DM basis, unless stated. n = 3, mean ± std.
Table 5. Chemical composition of husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage; values on % DM basis, unless stated. n = 3, mean ± std.
SubstrateDM (% FM)VSXAXPXLXFNfENDFADFADLNFCGE (MJ kg−1)C:NRatioSugars *Organic Acids **
Husk93.5 ± 0.092.9 ± 0.17.2 ± 0.0511.1 ± 0.01.5 ± 0.039.9 ± 0.140.4 ± 0.064.0 ± 1.149.5 ± 0.017.5 ± 1.616.2 ± 1.118.8 ±
Pulp92.3 ± 0.188.3 ± 0.211.7 ± 0.214.1 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.124.8 ± 1.248.5 ± 0.055.6 ± 1.447.1 ± 0.115.5 ± 1.617.6 ± 1.417.4 ±
Parchment96.0 ± 0.199.6 ± 0.10.45 ± 0.01.6 ± 0.00.9 ± 0.176.9 ± 0.320.1 ± 0.096.8 ± 0.376.9 ± 0.232.2 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.319.7 ± 0.119000
Mucilage94.8 ± 0.085.1 ± 0.114.9 ± 0.118.5 ± 0.00.1 ± 0.119.4 ± 0.447.1 ± 0.037.7 ± 1.236.9 ± 0.65.0 ± 0.328.8 ± 1.217.7 ± 0.1140.465.19
FM = fresh matter; DM = dry matter; VS = volatile solid; XA = crude ash; XP = crude protein; XL = crude fat; XF = crude fibre; NfE = nitrogen free extract; NDF = neutral detergent fibre; ADF = acid detergent fibre; ADL = acid detergent lignin; NFC = non-fiber carbohydrate; GE = gross energy * sucrose, glucose, and fructose; ** lactic, formic, acetic, and propionic acid; NFC = 100-NDF-XA-XL-XP.
Table 6. Elemental composition of the husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage in terms of manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co.), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), and tungsten (W) [mg kg−1 DM].
Table 6. Elemental composition of the husk, pulp, parchment, and mucilage in terms of manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co.), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), and tungsten (W) [mg kg−1 DM].
Optimum valuesMin.100300.41.015003.00.200.1
Table 7. Specific methane yield (SMY, mean ± STD, n = 6), degradability, and energy recovery rate of husk, pulp, and mucilage from HBT batch assay.
Table 7. Specific methane yield (SMY, mean ± STD, n = 6), degradability, and energy recovery rate of husk, pulp, and mucilage from HBT batch assay.
SubstrateSMY (L kg−1 VS)Methane Content (%) Degradability (%)Methane Energy (MJ kg−1 VS) Energy Recovery
Husk159.4 ± 1.851.535.36.3333.7%
Pulp244.7 ± 6.456.863.09.7556.1%
Parchment31.1 ±
Mucilage294.5 ± 9.655.568.011.766.1%
Table 8. Energy potential of coffee husk, pulp, and mucilage from one-year harvest.
Table 8. Energy potential of coffee husk, pulp, and mucilage from one-year harvest.
SubstrateSMY (m3 Mg−1 VS)Residues Production Ratio (RPR)
kg VS kg−1 GB a
Biomass Yield (Mg VS year−1)Methane Yield
(m3 year−1)
CHP Production (MWh/year)Diesel b
Fuel Cost c
Electricity(MWhel year−1)Heat(MWhTh year−1)
a Green coffee beans and b diesel calorific value = 10.25 kWh/L. c The diesel cost was estimated as 0.59 $/L based on the current retail price in Ethiopia.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chala, B.; Oechsner, H.; Latif, S.; Müller, J. Biogas Potential of Coffee Processing Waste in Ethiopia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2678.

AMA Style

Chala B, Oechsner H, Latif S, Müller J. Biogas Potential of Coffee Processing Waste in Ethiopia. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2678.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chala, Bilhate, Hans Oechsner, Sajid Latif, and Joachim Müller. 2018. "Biogas Potential of Coffee Processing Waste in Ethiopia" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2678.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop